• Benjaben@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Oof, well, point taken and sorry for your loss lol. I hear where you’re coming from. And I’m sure we’d get a worst of both worlds situation here in the US where we spent a ton of time and money developing whatever standards and definitions, and then we make it an optional guideline like you’re saying and it never goes anywhere.

    Dunno. The fundamental problem is tech is always able to move faster and smarter than legislation.

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      If I’m saying anything, it’s that legislation is the one thing tech can’t get around. Europe has put out a lot of legislation that tech hates, some good, some bad. But tech complies. The government contracts thing won’t hurt - it could possibly help legislation come about in one way: if government contracts force a handful of companies to do something, at least that shows the thing can be done. That’s kind of important because tech loves to complain that what this legislation calls for will be impossible!

      • Benjaben@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        I think we’re on the same page :)

        I’m mostly describing an idea where the contracts approach takes care of the necessary iteration to get a given tech policy sorted, and then legislation comes in to require it.

        My country can’t even get some basic stuff done, though, so realistically I may as well be writing fan-fic, lol

        • scarabic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          contracts approach takes care of the necessary iteration to get a given tech policy sorted

          Yeah that could be of use.